Social Issues vs. Economics

I have read many threads in this forum about left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican, conservative vs. liberal, in which people point out the similarities in the way all politicians deal with big business and monetary issues. I get it. I understand. No matter which of the two major parties wins the next US election, or which faction within that party has control, the big banks and multinational corporations are going to be well taken care of by Uncle Sam, and the ordinary guy is going to get thoroughly fucked again. It's a done deal. Case closed.

But what about social issues? Government doesn't just deal with economic things. It decides who you can marry, what you can eat and drink, how clean your water and air are going to be, what you can build on your own property, what you can do in your car, what rules your church has to operate under, what your kids are taught in public school, and all kinds of things pertaining to your relationship with your doctor, which may determine if you live or die this year, or have a baby that you don't want. Some of these social issues can have significant financial consequences for big business but most don't, so the big financial players don't give a shit about them.

How much money you have is only one aspect of your life. It's important, but many other things are equally or more important.

I have never heard anyone say that the two main American political parties are the least bit alike when it comes to social policy. In fact, they couldn't be more opposite, and their records prove that they act on their opposite views. Worse yet, Presidents get to appoint Supreme Court justices for life, and they issue all kinds of social policy rulings that impact your day to day life, for better or worse.

If the party that wins the next election is going to kiss the ass of Big Money no matter what, then isn't it true that social policy is the only thing where the voters still have a voice that matters? If so, then why aren't we talking about it more?

I know it's theoretically possible that a third party could rise to prominence and change the game, but that's pie in the sky. The two party system is what we have now, and one of the two is going to be running the show for the foreseeable future. We have to deal with that reality.

 

I think you're right for the most part, it does come down to a difference of social policy being the major difference between the parties. As to why it's not talked about more on the forums, I don't know...

 

Everything is just too complicated. Just because the government is the public face of policy, i.e the face everyone can bitch to/about doesnt mean they have the most influence.

Any government works to slow to compete with the private sector.

 

The "Social Issues" that have been discussed around here mostly have to do with NDAA and loss of free speech, etc. Some of that is going on in the Occupy section although discussion over there is limited to "Occupy related issues only"..... freedom of speech is a social issue.

Seems much of that is bipartisan that we are losing those rights..... Which sucks.

 

Anytime I post a thread about government interference or lack thereof regarding the food industry, I get responses like "OMG that is oooooold news. GTFO. No one cares, we've had this discussion a billion times." lol.

Thats an issue I'll talk about all day but not many other people here seem very interested. There are a couple of posters that are as passionate about it as I am, but other than that the discussions usually die down quickly.

I would say that when it comes to corporate influence and big money, no industry has more influence than the food industry in politics.

I think any issue pertaining to clean air and water is also equally influenced by corporate lobbyists.

Some of the issues you mentioned I regard as wedge issues used in every election. Things like gay marriage, abortion, etc.....

Womens' rights are important, but in the case of abortion I don't think thats getting overturned anytime soon. Its just something conservatives like to bring up to take attention away from the bigger issues.

I think gay marriage is an important issue, particularly to the people it effects personally. I think any politician that vows to keep marriage between a man and a woman is just spewing hate for the same reason they probably also told voters they were against abortion. I wouldn't vote for a politician like that and generally regard them as a joke, so its not really something I feel the need to discuss.

Social issues like healthcare and welfare, general safety nets for the lower rungs of society, are extremely important and should be talked about. Constantly. However, I've never been impressed by any politician's stance and actions on those issues. I can talk theory, I can talk about what should be done, but I have yet to find a politician that deserves a vote because of what they want to do to help the poor or sick.

Obama has a lot of rhetoric regarding this and sometimes he makes halfhearted attempts to help, like the healthcare bill. But in the end its just a watered down bill designed to give the insurance industry more profit.

I'm cynical. I think no matter what the issue is, its always influenced by money at the end of the day.

With the exception of Ron Paul (whose voting record in Congress is spotless but is appearantly a huge racist, so no one is perfect). But the one, i repeat one solitary time I mentioned that I liked Ron Paul on here (not that I was voting for Ron Paul, or that I stood outside his rallies with Ron Paul signs, or followed him around the country like he's Jerry Garcia incarnate, none of those things - I simply stated that I respected Ron Paul's voting record), someone jumped all over me in a thread. So I shy away from mentioning Ron Paul. And he's the only politician I've ever seen that doesn't take money from lobbyists and wants to uphold the constitution. I just don't enjoy discussing politics anymore otherwise; whether its a social issue or a monetary issue its a big joke to me. The world is being ran by clowns.

I have a community college education and I make 10 dollars an hour. And I have more common sense and better ideas than the rich, ivy-league educated fools involved in politics.

 

Mel, I have no doubt that the food industry has an influence on policy in washington, but I'm pretty sure it's no more influential than the drug (legal and illegal), insurance, and oil industries. Like you said it all boils down to money and frankly most social issues will not generate money one way or the other, or rather some social issues if "solved" will see a lot of money filtered from those who have money to those who don't. No matter how relatively little that money is.

However this is capitalism, it's a free-for-all, every man for himself system much like libertarianism (btw i like Ron Paul, but i can say that cause im black j/k). This is what you should expect when people are told to value greed over morality. Though greed is usually short sighted, and because money is spent so much else where than our schools and the poor, our politicians are literally mortgaging our future for them and their buddies short term gain of money.

So with that said, those rich ivy league educated folks aren't stupid they are simply working or mad decision on their best interest not for americas. I do agree with you for the most part, but you have to see it from their perspective sometimes to be able to get the nonsense that our politicians encourage and back.

Our society is making progress, but it's incremental at best.

I hope that made sense, wrote it in a hurry lol.

 

Here's a thought: Since so many are in debt up to their asses and so dependent on what is provided by the mega-corps, can the government do anything other than take care of the corporate giants?

Again, just a thought.

 

alls I really have to say is it confuses my brains out when people that are very liberal are also "fiscally conservative"

It's like - my nature is good and just but my social tool loves money and therefore supports some convoluted theory that crackeads should be banned from making welfare babies and corporations should be profitable at all costs

Knuckleheads

 

you're right. The food industry is a pet research project of mine so I tend to focus on it more than others. Its certainly one of the most far reaching influences and it does serve to support other industries...for example, unhealthy diets and processed food leads, eventually, to higher insurance premiums.

Social nets won't generate money but many of the issues mentioned in the OP are hindered because of money.

I just think there are obvious ways to make most social programs work much more efficiently than they do, and its frustrating to me that bureaucracy and all the politics that goes with it prevents this from happening.

I know this, but its much easier for me to call them stupid than to admit that the people keep electing people who have no intention of working for the best interest of the people.

I agree, but it just frustrates me because the solutions are there. Its not like we're searching for answers; the answers are obvious. So many problems in this country could be fixed easily if our politicians would learn to work together efficiently and use compassion and common sense.

 

What is the financial interest in the gay marriage debate? I haven't heard of any studies that show a link between gay marriage and anyone making or spending any more or less money, except for the trivial costs of weddings. Married or not, these couples can already live together and share expenses.

Another example; I live in a state that has lots of alcohol restrictions on Sundays. If those were lifted, some businesses would make more profit, and none would make less. Money is not controlling that issue.

This takes us back full-circle to the OP. The politicians don't work for the economic best interests of the voters, but many of those voters have other priorities. If you are a hard-core supporter of one specific issue other than money, you may think your Senator is doing a fantastic job for you, if he always votes the way you want him to on that one issue, or a narrow range of issues.

How many of your friends and relatives would say that making and hanging onto more money is their biggest problem and number one priority in life? Surely it can't be 100% of them.

 

Yeah but gay marriage is a wedge issue. Its a state issue. It doesn't matter if national politicians agree with gay marriage or not; it doesn't prevent states from allowing it. Thats also the beauty of states' rights; if you don't like the laws in one state you have the option to move.

As far as supporting local politicians in issues like gay marriage, NO politicians in my state support gay marriage lol. I don't generally vote in local elections at all. I don't enjoy voting for someone just because they're the lesser of two evils. If I don't agree with someone socially AND financially (which is generally the case in local politics) then I would rather not vote.

same here, and I happily went to the polls a couple of years ago to vote on a provision that allows Sunday alcohol sales in my town. It passed.

I think that people are too willing to settle with politicians. Like I mentioned above, most people vote for the lesser of two evils when we should be standing up and demanding representation from someone who will take our best interest to heart.

of course not but i dont understand the relevance of the question.

If a politician squanders money but they do a lot to support the gay community, that doesn't mean they're worth my vote. It means they're trying to get the gay vote so they can get voted into office and waste more money and fuck over people in other areas of life.

How a politician spends or takes money IS important. For one thing, it serves as a moral compass for voters. If a politician takes a lot of lobby money from corporations then ultimately they will serve the corporations. It doesn't really matter to me what they SAY their stance is regarding social issues, the fact of the matter is they're taking a lot of money from corporations and will therefore act in ways that I don't regard as morally respectable both monetarily and socially.

 

But on election day, your only other choice may be someone who is going to squander money and support putting gay people in prison. I'll take no more than two seconds deciding which one to vote for.

 

Unless Ron Paul wins. I hate to be that guy but it's true.

The federal government have no place mandating or regulating social issues. again, RP.

Not in policy but they tend to be in practice. That's why so little things ever change,, people have a choice between two parties where the only real difference is that one is a bit more Christian than the other.

In my eyes the only accceptable social policy is to not have one.

 

It confuses my brains out When people lump together corporations and actual capitalism.

 

Mine, too. Corporatism and capitalism are two different things.

 

I think people lump them together because that's what's going on in the world

We could talk about capitalism like we talk about socialism... like a *theory* that we are all just exchanging on the market

That should be reserved for :Economics in the Classroom: or the discussion thereof because it's quite DRY

In the real world corporate power is polluting all of humanity with consumerism and industrial waste

It's more relevant than Free Market Trade

 

It's true that corporate power is running wild due to a corrupt system of mind boggling tax laws and fucked up lobbyist-led regulation. To me the state of the world is the best argument for decentralization. Not everyone's view though.

 

Karen

I’d recommend a book published in the UK as http://www.amazon.co.uk/Whats-Matter-America-Resistible-American/dp/0099492938/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1329129521&sr=8-9"]What's The Matter With America?: The Resistible Rise of the American Right (but was published in the US as What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America) by Thomas Frank

It basically shows how many Americans were taught to vote against their own economic interests (and for those of the few), by being sidelined into social issues. As I believe Karl Rove once told campaigners to concentrate on – ‘god, guns and gays’, the idea being that if people were shouting about those things people wouldn’t notice that were benefits and jobs were disappearing and their wages were stagnating or falling.

Thing is of the list you gave in the OP I could only find one (marriage laws) that wouldn’t be of interest to businesses and where it wouldn’t mind having deregulation or privatisation.

Deregulation
Health and safety laws
Environmental laws
Property zoning
Charity (many charities are like big businesses*)

Privatisation
Education
Healthcare

* Enterprising? Ambitious? Looking for a well-paid career? The young might well consider working for a charity, perhaps even starting one if a determined 'social entrepreneur'.What we once thought of as an area for devotion and sacrifice has become very much big business these days. The average highest salary in the top 500 charities is apparently £83,000 a year!Fifty-six of these chief executives earn over £100,000 a year, according to the admirable think-tank Civitas in its new booklet Who Cares? It is not too difficult to display devotion to good causes with rewards like that available. The Daily Mail 9/2/07
*

 

This book explains how people were duped into voting Republican to support conservative social issues. Social liberals who vote primarily on social issues generally do not vote against their own economic interests, unless they happen to be extremely wealthy.

I am a Democrat who believes deeply in the importance of social issues, just like many American hippies of the 1960's and early '70's. I wasn't old enough to vote at the time, but I was greatly influenced by their thinking.

I agree that every political issue has some economic impact, but in many cases, it is extremely limited. Tax policies, banking regulations, and import/export policies have far more financial impact than everything else put together. Other political issues are not going to be decided on a financial basis, because the money wars are going to be won or lost on other battlefields.

Money can and does buy votes, but there are other ways to buy votes, and at the end of the day, votes are the only things that matter to any politician. Otherwise, Warren Buffet would be President now, to be followed by Mark Zuckerberg in November, and preceded by Bill Gates eight years ago.

Off topic. :toetap05:

This is essentially the position of social liberals in the USA. Republicans want to make everyone more or less the same, in every way. Democrats (and Libertarians) push for less government intervention in private life, especially with regard to sex and reproduction and recreational drugs (incuding alcohol).

I think you and I are in agreement on this, but I'm not sure.

I wish the US was more like Europe in this regard.

 

karen

Sorry I’m not sure of your thinking here - in what way would the impact be “extremely limited”?

I mean if the money isn’t there it’s unlikely to get done. I mean you talk of state education and healthcare, the funding and how it is allotted would have a great impact on its delivery, same with many of the other things you mention in the OP.

Not to the person on welfare because they can’t find a job or trying to find a good school for their kids or medicine because they’re unwell.

Sorry are you saying that education, healthcare, environment polices etc are not influenced by financial considerations?